A baseball fan in the steroid era


I have been a baseball fan since the middle of the 1955 season. I have written books about baseball. I have a web site dedicated to baseball. I have built whole life adventures around baseball. My wife and I spent the 2000 season living across the street from (what was then called) Pac Bell Park in San Francisco, and I went to every Giant game except five (when a client insisted I be in London to speak…) I wasn’t a Giant fan; I did it because I love baseball and a “walking life” and I realized when I saw where the new SF ballpark would be that one could comfortably live right in the vicinity.

That summer, Barry Bonds, the Giants leftfielder, became the favorite player of my adult life. This was the year before he started hitting home runs like a machine. From my seat in the stands, I admired his batting eye and plate discipline; the fact that he never threw to the wrong base from leftfield; the fact that he only attempted stolen bases in late innings of close games and was almost always successful. Ellis Burks, the Giants rightfielder, was our upstairs neighbor that year. Ellis told us that Bonds was an unbelievably hard worker. The press couldn’t stand Bonds, but that’s because he wasn’t particularly cooperative or friendly with them. As a fan, I couldn’t have cared less. What was there not to like? 

Well, we all know now, don’t we. STEROIDS!!! CHEATER!!! The sporting press has made an industry of ferreting out these miscreants. We know who they are.

I wasn’t a Giant fan, but I am a Yankee fan. ARod is another great favorite. Yes, he’s a recent additon to the steroid dungheap.

And this past week we have Manny Ramirez. I’m getting sick of this. Nobody can tell the truth.

What’s the truth?

The truth is that — whether it was 30% or 50% or 80% — a huge number of players were using PEDs (that’s “performance-enhancing drugs”) for many years. The owners knew it and encouraged it. The players were relaxed about it. The union did nothing because the union’s job is to fight with management and there was nothing to fight about! Management loved it because PEDs create home runs and (when pitchers take them) strikeouts. Home runs and strikeouts put fans in the seats.

So can Bonds or Tejada or Palmeiro or ARod or Clemens or Manny or any of them tell the truth? “Yes, I used these drugs. But, frankly, everybody was using them. I was competing against players who were using them. Nobody seemed to care or mind.”

No, they sure can’t. If they did, everybody — the Commissioner’s office, their ownership, their teammates, and the leadership of their union — would be down on them like a ton of bricks. If there is a “crime” here,  just about everybody’s guilty. So everybody’s much more comfortable letting the unlucky ones be consecutively outed, each one being treated as an isolated example of immorality. The collective hypocrisy — including on the part of the sportswriters who strut their purity — is nauseating. It’s really just pandering to an anti-drug hysteria which, if we give it a chance, might prove to be as passe as a lot of the other mistaken political and social ideas of the past three decades.

From Joe Torre’s current bestseller (I’d cite the page number, but I’m reading it on my iPhone in eReader so that wouldn’t mean anything):

Said one former All-Star and steroid user who competed against those Yankee teams, “Everyone around baseball did what they could possibly do. It was the survival of the fittest.”

…The player said that everybody in the game just understood that attitude was acceptable. “Now whether it was right or wrong, now you’re talking about a moral issue, but there were no rules. You did what you did. It was the wild, wild west.”

How should we regard performances during an era when steroid use was, as a practical matter, allowed and encouraged by the entire baseball establishment? Remember that when Mark McGwire was hitting 70 home runs, he had “andro” in plain view in his locker and it was written about during the season. Lenny Dykstra showed up one at Spring Training one year looking like he’d been inflated with a bicycle pump. Brady Anderson went from a gap hitter to a 50 home run guy in 1996. Suddenly lots of players were hitting 50 or more home runs in a season, which used to be a rare accomplishment.

The era is going to define itself statistically. As the dead ball era did. As the 30s (an era of very high batting averages and low strikeout totals) did. As the stolen base era ushered in by Maury Wills and extending to Rickey Henderson did. But it is really unfair to judge the people of the 1990s and early 2000s by a a standard that was developed when people noticed the size of Barry Bonds’s head in 2003.

If the Truth and Reconciliation Commission concept ever came to baseball on this topic, the list of villains would be far more extensive than the ones whose drug tests were leaked.

May 28 at 11 am at Javits Center: “Stay Ahead of the Shift.” Publishers are chasing their tails trying to figure out how to keep getting paid adequately for content. It will just get harder and harder to do. Use your content to build community. That’s where equity is in the long run. The good news? This shift will take a while. And publishers are well equipped to stay ahead of it.


  Back to blog

  • msaiwn
    Why are steroids for sale if they rise all that trouble?
  • Because they have many legitimate uses. In fact, it is not clear that the
    ban on them by professional sports isn't a hysterical reaction to mis-use.

    Mike
  • moon815
    Steroids are not the real problem here, it is the players using them when they know it is disallowed, I feel many forget that. I use them myself for body building, if there was anything bad about them they wouldn't make it so easy and cheap to buy steroids online would they?
  • There is no necessary connection between what is cheap and easy to obrain
    and what is good for you or safe. I have no knowledge of the real benefits
    and risks of steroids, and obviously you do. But I'm afraid availability
    just isn't evidence of anything.

    Mike
  • Zettler
    OK, Mike, let's go down your road - There's no way to police it so why even bother - Once it's out in the open the chemists can really get to work on some "Super-Juice" - Now 115 MPH fast balls and 600 foot home runs are the norm and the game becomes my Chemist is better than your Chemist. It doesn't matter what's real and what's not as it's all relative - They're all "juicing" so we have a level playing field. Soon the obvious question becomes, "Since nothing's real, why are we bothering with humans at all? We can create all of this in a very believable 'virtual' world" Come on! Why are we limiting the interlopers into the game to Chemists? Let's let the guys in the truck in on the show. Some really creative media types are going to come up with much better baseball than a stadium of Barrys and ARods are ever going to be capable of. Fanstasic? Sure. But the inescapable fact in all that is that at some point you are going to have to put a limit on what you are going to allow in the game. That being the case, what's wrong with putting our foot down here and now?
  • Zettler, did you ever study Constitutional Law? What you have outlined here is known as a "parade of imagined horribles." You ended up with robots; that's pretty extreme. The problem with "putting our foot down here and now" is that we put our foot down pretty selectively. The press goes after Bonds and Ramirez and ARod, but not after Tim Laker. There were 100 guys (apparently) caught in the year they did the test tests. Isn't it odd that we've heard only about a few big names?

    And what about the owners that encouraged it? Or don't you think any of them did? Do they escape punishment?

    Self-righteousness feels good to a lot of people, but, selectively employed, as it is here, it is more unfair than it is useful at accomplishing anything.
  • Dan
    Two comments:

    1) Like you, I'm a big Bonds fan -- and mostly for the same reasons. PEDs aside, he was a living legend, one of maybe two or three players (Ken Griffey Jr.? and maybe Frank Thomas?) who define the batters of the 90s and early 2000s. And, like you, I'm not a Giants fan (Mets). I saw Bonds for what he was: a truly great player who stands out in any era.

    A few years ago, I wrote a (semi-)defense of Bonds -- it's linked above as my "website." My argument was simple: Bonds was a great player, drug-free. Then come along McGwire and Sosa, and suddenly, Bonds' incredible output is pedestrian. In 1998, when Mac hit 70 and Sosa 66, Bonds put up a .308 BA, 37 HR, and 122 RBI year, and his OBP and SLG were 4th in the NL -- behind Mac (both), Olerud (OBP)/Sosa (SLG), and Larry Walker of Coors Field (both). By all measures, he had a great year, but no one cared. He was 8th in MVP voting, behind guys like Greg Vaughn (50 HR, but fewer RBI than Bonds). Chicks dig the long ball, after all. Here's a guy who by all means should have been the superstar of his generation. He had a great year -- and probably a PED-free one -- and is awarded by being an afterthought behind Sosa and McGwire.

    Do I blame him for succumbing to the race to the bottom. Of course, for reasons I'll get to in point two. But I find it ridiculous and insulting that Bonds becomes the focal point of the ire. "Everyone else is doing it" is not an excuse, but it certainly is a mitigating factor.

    2) But that's not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that *not* everyone was doing it. We're degrading those who, despite relative ease and near-certain exemption from actual punishment, decided not to use PEDs.

    I assume, without evidence nor reason beyond faith, that John Olerud (one of my personal favorites) is PED free. He never had more than 24 home runs; his career wound down by age 36; his offensive prowess was mostly a function of doubles-power and a great batting eye fueling a near-.300 BA and near-.400 OBP. But his career totals of 2239 hits and 255 HR do not evoke conversations of Cooperstown. Nor should they.

    However, it is absolutely shameful that -- again, assuming he is clean -- he had a mere two All-Star Game nods. In 1998, he started the year with a March/April BA of .359 and a May BA of .382. But his five home runs were dwarfed by McGwire's 27 to the point where he seemed pathetic.

    I think you are correct when you say that "[t]he era is going to define itself statistically" similar to the Dead Ball Era. And that will be a big, big mistake. It will punish those players who were indeed innocent and will improperly disincentivize future players from remaining innocent.

    The only way for baseball to remedy this ill is to do what should have been done years ago: a period of formal amnesty for anyone who admits to PED use, followed by draconian punishment if you're discovered guilty thereafter. (I realize that causes other problems, e.g. honest accidents, but some safeguards akin to our legal system can handle that.) Yes, that would require Bud Selig to take this on the chin. Yes, that would require ownership to do the same. And yes, we'd probably need Federal and state governments to similarly agree to grant amnesty from criminal and civil prosecution. In absence of that or similar, baseball is ensuring that this will happen again, and next time, it will be worse.
  • Dan, we agree on a lot but we disagree ultimately.

    I think more obtrusive testing and punishment is a hopeless solution. New formulas are developed all the time, and the line between legit and illegit is often subjective.

    I recognize that accepting PED-use as largely uncontrollable is as difficult for some people as accepting that illegal immigration is largely uncontrollable. But they are. Any solution that doesn't start from that premise is doomed to fail. As I believe yours is. But I wasn't that big an Olerud fan, so that might be part of why we look at it differently.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Go Back | Top